by leavingwt 128 Replies latest jw friends
1 Kings 13 v 1 and 2 human sacrifice
Judges 11: 29-40 human sacrifice
Joshua 7:15 human sacrifice
2 Kings 23 v 20-25 human sacrifice
Ezekiel 21 v 33-37 human sacrifice
Deuteronomy 13 v 13-19 human sacrifice
This does not include killing the first born sons of egypt, nor the baby born of Bathsheba taken in exchange for David's sin. I hope you read them Sulla, for the moral is.... the god of the bible is disgusting.
Much non-sacrificing love
Snare x
You'd be agreeing with me if you think that people who say they would never have agreed to sacrifice a child are preening. Which you haven't said. But it's ok: you are charmingly clueless whether you agree with me or not.
snare&racket, it isn't obvious that you understand the idea of human sacrifice. The killing of the Egyptian firstborn, for example, is not a case of human sacrifice. Neither, for that matter, is the death of David's child.
For that matter, the actions of Josiah are probably not human sacrifices, either, given that they are a reaction against the practice of child sacrifice by his predecessor. So, you are not really making a point that I can see.
Fundamentalists are put into a position where they may balk at execution on this side of the veil but on the otherside they are handed a sword and must execute opposers when they hear the Trumpets.
Inded so, designs.
Sulla, you're Catholic by choice? If so, I hardly think you have room to call anyone in here clueless, especially a sharp member like NewChapter. That's just rich.
Your suggestion that we would all offer child sacrifices if we lived a 2-3 millienia back is quaint but I would like to point out that, unlike you, many of us on this forum are among a minority today, and proudly stand apart from the 2+ billion who worship a 2k year old corpse and live by a bronze age morals.
So who knows? Maybe we would be among the few back then who would've rejected the "the thinking and attitudes" that pontificating f*cks like you would've willingly adopted. But I understand if that's beyond your grasp.
Oh I agree, given a different time and culture, we would all be subject to the beliefs and practices of the day. Human sacrifice did not always involve ones own children, but much more likely involved conquered people. However your assertion that a parent would slit a child's throat and just move on is a bit wonky. As you have already pointed out, people then are like people now with similar emotions. Today we send our children to war, and sometimes they die. Parents don't just move on content that they did the right thing. Those people grieved just as we grieve today.
As a whole, humankind has decided that human sacrifice is unacceptable, and they have left those gods behind. Except for one of those gods. The god of the bronze-aged desert dwellers. It takes quite a bit of cognitive dissonance to say that human sacrifice is wrong, and then take part and defend a religion that is based on human sacrifice. This is not shocking. It is how religion works.
When we look at the history of the church, and see the atrocities committed in the name of a blood thirsty god, can we really argue that those people didn't think they were making their god happy? No. It was right to burn 'witches'. It was right to torture 'heretics'.
I suppose that the real question is asked by today's standards. If all those other religions were brutal and led people to do inhumane things, then why do some still cling to one of them that was just as guilty as the rest of them? So the king of Moab sacrificed his son---shocking! This newer god sacrificed his son. Amen! An entire religion was built on it.
Hopefully in years to come, more will figure out that this religion is just as brutal as other the other religions from which it evolved. In the meantime, believers will be shocked at the brutality of those dead religions, while clinging to their own brutal religion. As the OP said. Cognitive Dissonance.
NC
So who knows? Maybe we would be among the few back then who would've rejected the "the thinking and attitudes" that pontificating f*cks like you would've willingly adopted
LOL---and then there is that. I don't suppose we would have lasted long in a different culture. But I do agree that it would have been the Sulla types leading the charge against us. And thanks guys! I'm feeling the love.
Cheeze, have I told you lately that I love you?
